Durkheim and James

I think it’s interesting to compare Durkheim and James. Durkheim was convinced that religion was really a social force with the purpose of social cohesion. He believed that social groups attain their unity by enforcing punishments and restrictions. These punishments and rules must be “internalized” by its members, and religion is the highly effective means by which to do this – “religion and morals are inseparable from a social framework” (Pals 91). Religion sets up taboos to establish what is out of bounds for the group. Religion is a natural process of human beings living in groups.

Durkheim believed that if we look at the practice of totemism we can see first hand certain important principles of religion, such as the sacred and the profane – the totem is considered sacred by the members of a group. Sacred things are always set apart as superior, powerful, forbidden to normal contact, and deserving of great respect” (Pals 96). The sacred involves the interests of the entire group of people, not just one person “or a few” (Pals 96). The profane involves smaller, individual and immediate family concerns. Magic is an individual concern for Durkheim – it is concerned with healing you or your family member, for instance, or putting a spell on your enemy.

James was much more concerned with the experiences of individuals concerning religion. He was intensely interested in what a person means when they say they have had a religious experience. Since he was a psychologist, this intense interest in the internal process of the individual makes sense. Durkheim’s approach makes sense because he was a sociologist, while for James, religion was an intensely personal matter – their approaches seem to be nearly the inverse of each other.

The Future of an Illusion

Summary
Freud does not hesitate to apply a reductionist eye to religion in his work, Future of an Illusion.  In his psychological diagnosis of religion, he makes a dim assessment of individuals and the masses.  They are “lazy and unintelligent,” and must be controlled by leaders and laws (Freud 8).  He asserts that religion functions as a paternal wish-fulfillment, allying humankind’s fears, establishing perfect justice, and answering many troubling questions.  His final outlook for the future of civilization is that religion will eventually be discarded, as humanity gradually realizes that religious belief is, in Freud’s opinion, at best a neurotic illusion.

Question for class discussion
Freud seems to believe in two groups of people: “civilization” and the dangerous “masses.”  What are the characteristics of both groups?

Critical reflections on reading
I will have to admit that I am sympathetic, in general, to Freud’s perspectives concerning religion.  Coming from a conservative religious family and background, I know too well the sort of “repression” (using his language) that religion can have, especially while growing up.  When I began to live on my own apart from my family, I gradually found huge contradictions and problems with my beliefs, and doctrine by doctrine, gave them up as being non-realities.  Before reading this book, I commented that Christianity and the monotheistic “father” religions seem conspicuously to be father-figure wish-fulfillments.

The process of learning and exploration for me is an ongoing journey.  I will admit to hoping that at least one of my siblings “leaves the fold,” so that we can actually talk on a similar level.  I’m not sure if I share Freud’s “optimism” concerning religion gradually “going away,” though it seems clear to me that beliefs and religions are dynamic and always “evolving”.  Also, it is simplistic to talk about “religion” as if it were some monolithic entity, as there are such a wide variety of religious beliefs and practices, many of which seem beneficial, not problematic.

In my view, beliefs which label people as anything besides people are a problem (such as “believers” and “nonbelievers”).  These labels only contribute to alienation and conflict.  We as human beings need to come together for mutual love and support and to care for this earth, not as “pilgrims” passing through this “fallen” world, but as fellow creatures of this earth.

In contrast to Freud’s rigid view of science as the panacea of humanity, I think that any activity which “opens the eyes” a little to the profound qualities of being alive in this universe is wonderful, whether it be singing, dance, or looking through a telescope.  Also, engaging with other people and nature are ways to open up a little.  It is not just science or non-belief in God which are going to help us unite in our true commonality.  Perhaps this is my new “religion” – the “big church” that we are all participating in, and we are the most vital when we are awake and engaged.

Varieties of Religious Experience (Chap 1-2)

Summary
James makes very clear in the first two chapters of The Varieties of Religious Experience that he is a friend of religion, unlike Freud.  Though he also applies a psychological perspective to his research on religion, he rejects the dissection of religion as the mere products of psychopathology.  He dismisses rationalism as being misapplied to religion, and gives weight to our intuition for guidance.  As James focuses his attention on the experience of the individual, rather than institutional doctrines, rites, and rituals, it becomes clear that he is particularly sympathetic towards the Christian mystics.

Question for class discussion
James states that concerning religion, “Instinct leads, intelligence does but follow” (James 75).  If James is correct, does it matter whether the objects of spiritual belief exist or not?

Critical reflections on reading
James’ perspective is very compelling for me, because he is taking religion more on its terms, rather than imposing pure reason on the matter.  He mocks “rationalists” and “dogmatists” as being completely off-base.  It seems he is arguing for the case of religion, whether their beliefs in God are correct or not.

It is the process and effects of believing which fascinate him.  He depicts the philosopher as at best “a high-hearted freeman and no pining slave,” however he believes that the religiously inspired have an enthusiasm and spark for life that only religion can provide (James 53).  He gives many quotations from inspired believers, and it seems clear that mystical union with the experience of the divine is at the true heart of religion for James.

I think that James provides a nice counter-balance to the harshness of Freud.  I connect with his affection for the mystical.  The experience of openness, acceptance, awe, and oneness is for me, the very heart of religious experience.  Personally, I do not personify a divine being other to me, with whom I must join; rather, I feel a connection with everything that exists, a recognition of myself as being part on this vast ever-moving ocean.

Hard-nosed rationalists, whom James rails against, I feel are missing out on this other angle on religion.  He gives voice to some of the feelings I have when I encounter atheists who are stuck in hostile, oppositional stances to religion.  Though some religious people can be just as dogmatic and problematic, I appreciate the insight James gives to what I feel is true religious experience.  Perhaps Freud echoes my frustrations with what I feel is bad and harmful about religion and James gives light to what I feel is essential and good.

It is interesting to me that there is a tone of resignation about Freud when he talks about reconciling one’s self to what he considers the true, harsh nature of reality – he talks about being insignificant and helpless. He seems to be willing himself towards optimism for the human race against his true feelings. This is actually consistent with James’ assessment of those without religious inspiration. James, meanwhile, seems to revel in those who have found a boundless, active engagement with their experience of reality, and it is fun for me to revel along with him.